Growth and yield responses of ten wheat (Triticum aestivum

SVU-International Journal of Agricultural Science

Volume 2 Issue (2) pp.: 1- 17, 2020

Print ISSN 2636-3801 | Online ISSN 2636-381X

Doi: 10.21608/svuijas.2020.31707.1011 RESEARCH ARTICLE

1

Growth and yield responses of ten wheat (Triticum aestivum L) genotypes to drought

Shalaby, E.M.M1, E.H. Galall1, M.B. Ali1, Ahmed Amro2 and Azza El Ramly 1,*

1 Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Assiut, 71526, Egypt 2 Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, 71526, Egypt

Abstract

In two successive seasons (2017/ 2018 and 2018 /2019), the trends of ten wheats (Triticum

aestivum L) genotypes were assessed to drought stress at the Agricultural Research Station,

Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Egypt. Drought obtained by skipping four

irrigations of seven irrigations of control. Generally, droughts caused reduction for all the

estimated morphological and physiological traits. The data revealed that the plant height was

greatly affected in AIL134 and Sids12. Spike length, 100 grains weight and grains yield per

genotype were adversely affected in AIL103, the former was affected in Sids12 and the

middle one was reduced in Giza168 under drought stress. Also photosynthetic pigments were

reduced in AIL108, AIL112 and in the Egyptian genotypes (Giza168 and Sids12). On the

other hand, these traits were moderately affected under drought in AIL120, AIL129, AIL142

and AIL148 genotypes. Statistical analysis revealed that the drought was significantly

affected all traits except chlorophyll b contents. Also the differences between the genotypes

were significant. Most of the interactions between the genotypes, treatments and years were

significant with some exceptions as those for spike length and weight of 100 grains.

Keywords: Photosynthesis, Morphology, Grain yield, Spike height, Genotype.

Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) being one of

the important staple food cereal globally, it

is cultivated to rally the demands of food

for population consumption in many

countries of the world. Wheat is one of the

major cereals in the world and is one of the

main sources of calories and protein.

Approximately 85% and 82% of the global

population depends on wheat for basic

calories and protein, respectively (Chaves

et al. 2013).

*Corresponding author: Azza A. El Ramly

Email: [email protected]

+201203658484

Received: June 3, 2020;

Accepted: June 29, 2020;

Published: July 8, 2020.

It is a cereal grain belongs to Poaceae

family, which has been known as semi-

tolerant plants to drought. Wheat is grown

on more than 250 million hectares and its

world production is 500 million tons.

Wheat is grown in many countries of the

world by relying on rain water for

irrigation, and in other countries it is

grown using regular irrigation. The top

wheat producer countries in the world are

Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium

and Germany (FAO, 2018).

Egypt had been known by wheat

production and consumption since ancient

times. Wheat has been cultivated by many

civilizations for over 9,000 years.

Recently, there was a big gap between

wheat consumption and production that

reached about 55% (FAO, 2018). To

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09064710.2017.1395064?casa_token=JPrzdrvqUWsAAAAA%3AroC7z8BX9wzSph00GBRUOB81ecXeiTNVFUmmAKl4WA1S06kR933CpuSnC6CChDRkA1EbnTDE-nJf1p4

Shalaby et al., SVU-International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(2): 1-17, 2020

2

bridge this gap Egypt imports about 6

million tons to provide for the needs of the

population, as local production is not

sufficient (Rizk and Sherif, 2014).

Wheat grown in widely varied climatic and

edaphic conditions, but a good crop

requires suitable weather conditions and

adequate soil to obtain the highest yield.

Slightly dry, temperate climatic conditions

are most suitable for wheat cultivation.

Because of its high level of adaptation,

wheat is cultivated in tropical and

subtropical regions and under both rain-fed

and irrigated cultivation. However, crop

production is severely affected by adverse

environmental stresses (Rahaie

et al. 2013). Wheat cultivation is subjected

to a number of other limitations like

diversity of climatic and soil conditions,

pests and diseases. Unfavorable conditions

for wheat cultivation include hail storms,

heavy and prolonged rainfall, germination

on spike, drought and frost. Over 100

diseases caused by biotic and abiotic

stresses affect wheat in the USA and in

other countries (Savary et al. 2012).

Among all the abiotic stress, drought

probably has the most significant effect on

growth and yield which plants may be

encounter in both natural and agricultural

systems (Bartels and Sunkar 2005).

Drought effects all growth stages of wheat

and more critical at flowering and grain

filling stage. Losses of wheat productivity

depend on the severity and duration of

drought because of reducing in

photosynthesis, stomata closure, metabolic

activity decrease, oxidative stress increase

and result in poor grain formation

ultimately yield loss. Easy method to get

yield from drought areas are to develop

drought tolerance genotypes according to

marks. Heritable variation required for the

improvement, but heritability is low

because of the genotypic and

environmental interaction. Reactive

oxygen species (ROS) produce as result of

drought which effects the cellular

mechanism, enzyme inhibition, protein

degradation, effect on DNA and RNA at

the end cell death (Huseynova, 2012).

Under drought conditions, chlorophyll

content decreases (Nikolaeva et al., 2010)

and chlorophyll b reduces more as

compared to chlorophyll a. Meanwhile,

drought tolerant genotypes have high

chlorophyll content under drought stress

(Keyvan, 2010). Chlorophyll content was

used as marker for evaluation of

germplasm. In drought chlorophyll

contents decrease and stomata greatly

affected. ROS negatively affect the

chloroplast and cause a decrease in

chlorophyll contents. Also severe drought

stops the activity of photosynthesis at the

end effect the chlorophyll content and

photosynthetic apparatus (Mafakher et al.,

2010). Photosynthetic capacity is

positively correlated with leaf chlorophyll.

Drought sensitive genotypes rapidly

decrease chlorophyll content. Tolerant

genotypes with high chlorophyll content

considered as a good marker.

Drought also affects the reproductive

organs, grain filling stage, pollen viability

and seed development (Begcy and Walia,

2015). In recent years, agricultural

management practices like irrigation and

crop improvements play important role in

increasing grain yield (Zhaoa et al., 2017).

In cereals grain development initiate with

the fertilization of egg to form zygote and

one nuclei form endosperm.

Photosynthesis occurs in leaves and store

food in vegetative parts that play important

role in grain filling. At young microspore




3

stage of pollen, drought creates sterility in

pollen and reduces in grain number (Ji et

al., 2010). In drought meiosis and anthesis

are badly affected at the end reduce grain

yield (Cattivelli et al., 2008). Grain

number in wheat shows no effect of

drought and has effect on grain filling

result in shorten the grain filling stage

(Farooq et al., 2014).

Different genotypes of wheat behave

different in drought. A comprehensive

study helps us understanding of some

important markers. Breeders can select

well adaptive drought genotypes on the

base of morphological markers (avoid leaf

senescence, flag leaf, root system, grain

development, stay green character,

cuticular wax and stomata conductance.),

physiological markers (Abscisic acid,

Proline, Chlorophyll content, Jasmonic

acid and cell stability) and molecular

markers (Iqbal, 2019). The final yield of

any crop is well known to depend on plant

performance during the successive stages

of its life cycle; the most critical of which

are seed germination and seedling growth

(Tian et al. 2014). Evaluation and breeding

of wheat genotypes tolerance or sensitivity

to drought could be estimated after the

performed in the following steps: (1)

calculation of expected wheat productivity,

depending on environmental factors, (2)

calculation of relative productivity of

cultivars in the environments, and (3)

recommendation of cultivars of a specific

type and range of adaptation (Iwánska et

al., 2020). This work aimed to evaluate the

differences in growth, yield and

photosynthetic responses of ten bread

wheat genotypes, two of them were

Egyptian genotypes, under normal and

drought stress conditions.

Materials and Methods

1.Plant materials and growing conditions:

A set of 10 bread wheat genotypes were

used in the current study comprised of 2

Egyptian cultivars, and 8 advanced inbred

lines (AIL) obtained from CIMMYT

(Table 1). These AIL lines were derived

from different crosses and selected under

different environments through shuttle

breeding approach in CIMMYT. These 10

genotypes were sown using randomized

complete block design in a strip plot

arrangement with 3 replications. The after

mentioned genotypes were grown during

two growing seasons (2017/ 2018 and

2018 /2019) at the Agricultural Research

Station, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut

University, Egypt. Both optimal and

drought conditions were applied as

follows: In the optimal condition,

genotypes were irrigated regularly. While,

in the drought condition, four irrigations

were skipped, two during vegetative

growth and two during flowering stage

(Table 2). The land was prepared for

cultivation using chisel plow and the

experimental unit was 3*3.5 m consisting

of 5 lines were planted in early December

on the basis number of grains of 100

grains/line. Each genotype was represented

by one row and the harvest was finally at

the end of April.

2. Plant traits:

Plant height (cm) was measured as the

distance from the ground surface to the

base of the main culm spike using 10

individual guarded stems from each

genotype.



4

Table 1. The name, pedigree, and origin of studied genotypes.

Code

No

Genotypes Cross Name Selection History Origin

1 C103 KACHU #1 CMSS97M03912T-040Y-020Y-030M-020Y-040M-4Y-

2M-0Y

MXI13-

14\MULTTESTIGOS\4

2 C108 TAITA CMSS08Y00140S-099Y-099M-099NJ-099NJ-4WGY-0B MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\9

3 C112 MUTUS//ND643/2*WBLL1 CMSS08Y00224S-099Y-099M-099NJ-099NJ-1WGY-0B MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\19

4 C120 CHEWINK #1/MUTUS CMSS08Y00485S-099Y-099M-099Y-5M-0WGY MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\43

5 C129

CHYAK1*2/3/HUW234+LR

34/PRINIA//PFAU/WEAVE

R

CMSS08Y00931T-099TOPM-099Y-099M-099NJ-099NJ-

1WGY-0B

MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\92

6 C134 WHEAR//2*PRL/2*PASTOR

/3/QUAIU #1 CMSS08B00510S-099M-099NJ-099NJ-3WGY-0B

MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\109

7 C142

CROSBILL

#1/DANPHE/7/CNDO/R143//

ENTE/MEXI_2/3/AEGILOP

S SQUARROSA

(TAUS)/4/WEAVER/5/2*KA

UZ/6/PRL/2*PASTOR

CMSS08B00659T-099TOPY-099M-099NJ-099NJ-

14WGY-0B

MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\122

8 C148 BECARD//KIRITATI/2*TRC

H/3/BECARD CMSS08B00888T-099TOPY-099M-099NJ-35WGY-0B

MXI13-

14\M35ES22SAWHT\166

9 Giza-168 Giza-168 MIL/Buc/SeriCM93046-8M-04-0M-2Y-OB Egypt

10 Sids-12 Sids-12 BUC//7C/ALD/5/MAYA74/ON//1160.147/3/BB/GLL/4/C

HAT"S"/6/MAYA/VUL//CMH74A.63014*SX Egypt

Table 2. Irrigation cycle for season (2017-2019).

First season Control Drought 5/12/2017 Sowing

25/12/2017 + + 12/1/2018 + - 27/1/2018 + - 12/2/2018 + - 26/2/2018 Sample collection 27/2/2018 + + 14/3/2018 + -

1/4/2018 + + 23/4/2018 Harvest

Second season 2/12/2018 Sowing

24/12/2018 + + 10/1/2018 + - 28/1/2019 + -

17/2/2019 + - 26/2/2019 Sample collection 7/3/2019 + + 20/3/2019 + - 7/4/2019 + + 1/5/2019 Harvest

+ indicates irrigation was given, - irrigation was skipped


5

Subsequently, the average plant height was

calculated for each replication.

Chlorophyll content (A and B):

Chlorophyll was extracted, in test tubes,

from a definite weight (0.09 gm) of fresh

healthy leaves in 10 ml of 80% aqueous

ethanol and heated in 70 ºC water bath for

12-15 minutes (all tubes were covered by

glass marbles) until the leaf tissue turned

colorless (Welfare et al., 1996). Then, the

samples were immediately inserted in ice

to cool down and adjusted to 10 ml

volume. Using spectrophotometer (Spectro

22 LaboMed, Inc), the extension of optical

density of the extract was measured at 3

wavelengths of 470, 644 and 663 which

are the maximum absorption of

Chlorophyll A (Chl. a) and Chlorophyll b

(Chl. b). These photosynthetic pigments

were expressed as mg. g-1 FW. The used

equations for this purpose were

Chl. a = (0.0127 A663 – 0.00269 A644) ×

extraction rtio

Chl. b = (0.0229 A645 – 0.00468 A663) ×

extraction rtio

Spike length (cm) was measured at

harvesting as an average length of 10

spikes taken randomly from the middle of

each plot or genotype. 100 GW was

recorded in grams (g) by the mean weight

of random 1000-grain samples. Grain yield

(g) was weighted as grain yield for each

genotype.

3. Drought susceptibility index (DSI):

Drought susceptibility index was calculated

according to the method of Fischer and

Maurer (1978). Yield of individual genotype

was determining under stress (Yd) and

favorable well-water (Yw) conditions.

Average yield of all genotype under drought

(×d) and well-watered conditions (×w) were

used to calculate drought intensity (D) as: D

= (1– ×d/×w). The mean drought

susceptibility index (DSI) of individual

genotype was calculated as: S = (1-

Yd/Yw)/D. Genotypes with average

susceptibility or tolerance to drought have

''S'' value of 1.0 values, less than 1.0

indicate less susceptibility and great

tolerance to drought. Meanwhile, a value of

S = 0.0 indicates maximum possible drought

resistance mean no effect of drought on

yield.

4. Statistical and genetic analyses:

The separate and combined analyses of

variance of the evaluation of cultivars were

done on plot mean basis according to

Gomez and Gomez (1984). After testing

the homogeneity of variance, LSD used to

compare means according to (El-Rawi and

Khalafalla 1980).

Results and Discussions

Data in table 3 indicated that the

differences between the years were

significant in all studied traits except for

the length of the spike and the weight of

100 grains. Also, drought treatment

affected all traits except chlorophyll b

content. The interaction between years and

drought treatment was significant for all

traits. All the differences between the

genotypes were significant. Also the

differences were significant for the

interaction between the genotypes and

years except for the length of the spike.

The interaction between the genotypes and

treatments was significant for all traits and

the differences in the effective between the

patterns of genetic and transactions and

years were all immaterial except spike

length and the weight of the 100 grains.


6

Table 3. Strip plot analysis combined of variance for growing tow season (2017/2018,

2018/2019).

Source DF PH Chl a Chl b SL 100GW GY

Year (Y) 1 5880*** 8.13*** 3.5*** 2.78 0.1 804647.05***

Error A 2 1.3 0.03 0.001 4.87 0.05 10309

Treatment (T) 1 2050.13*** 0.28** 0.03 69.39*** 2.91*** 8332009.67***

T x Y 1 73.63* 1.18*** 0.52*** 4.7* 1.61*** 285339.13***

Error B 4 7.23 0.01 0.01 0.4 0.03 3687.63

Genotypes (G) 9 66.61*** 0.11*** 0.07*** 1.85* 0.7*** 62709.53***

G x Y 9 40.09*** 0.08*** 0.1*** 1.57 0.1* 59184.77***

Error C 36 5 0.01 0.004 0.84 0.04 3453.93

G x T 9 113.67*** 0.16*** 0.12*** 2.33* 0.15** 101607.21***

G x T x Y 9 41.65*** 0.14*** 0.12*** 1.52 0.04 30940.38***

Error 36 6.18 0.01 0.004 1.06 0.05 4127.78

PH = Plant height, SL = Spike Length, GY = grain yield.

Significance * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.

*, **, *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 levels of probability; respectively

1. Chlorophyll a content:

The combined average of Chl. a content

under normal irrigation conditions ranged

from 0.72 for AIL142 to 1.08 for Giza 168

with an average of 0.92. Five genotypes

were significantly surpassed the average

Chl. a content under control. Chl. a

contents ranged from 0.44 for AIL108 to

0.79 for AIL148 with an average of 0.64.

Generally, Chl. a contents were decreased

(Table 5). AIL120, AIL148 and Giza168

recorded the highest Chl. a contents under

drought conditions. Thus these genotypes

could be used to improve chlorophyll a

content. The reductions in chlorophyll a

contents due to water stress in the first,

second and over both seasons were 29.11,

33.62 and 30.64% compared to normal

irrigation conditions, respectively.

DSI indicated the most tolerant genotypes

of drought at a rate of 0.02 to AIL120, and

the most sensitive to drought at a rate of

2.24 to AIL134 in the first season

indicating that the most tolerant genotypes

of drought at a rate of 0.07 to AIL134, and


1.64 to AIL108 in the second season. It

indicated the most tolerant genotypes of

drought at a rate of 0.48 to AIL142, and


1.50 to AIL108 in means over two

seasons. The results showed that net

photosynthesis and transpiration rate was

severely reduced under water deficit

condition. These results agreed with

Condon et al. (2002).

2- Chlorophyll b content:

The combined average of chlorophyll b

(Chl. b) contents under normal irrigation

conditions ranged from 0.53 for AIL129 to

0.93 for AIL148 with an average of 0.68

six genotypes were significantly surpassed

the average Chl. b content Under control,

Chl. b contents ranged from 0.37 for

Giza168 to 0.55 for AIL148 with an

average of 0.45. Three genotypes were

significantly surpassed the Chl. b contents

under drought (Table 6). Moreover,

AIL120 and AIL148 recorded the higher

Chl. b under drought stress conditions.

While the reductions in Chl. b content due

to water stress in the first, second and over

both seasons were 29.39, 42.01 and

34.02% compared to normal irrigation

conditions, respectively.


7

Table 4. Mean chlorophyll A content, (nm), reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation

and water stress conditions.

2017 – 2018 2018 – 2019 Means over two years

Genotype Control Drought Mean R% DSI Control Drought Mean R% DSI Control Drought Mean R% DSI

AIL103 0.95 0.85 0.90 10.68 0.37 0.78 0.42 0.60 46.15 1.37 0.87 0.63 0.75 26.66 0.87

AIL108 1.07 0.65 0.86 39.63 1.36 0.54 0.24 0.39 55.22 1.64 0.81 0.44 0.62 44.83 1.50

AIL112 1.31 0.69 1.00 47.34 1.63 0.58 0.39 0.49 32.76 0.97 0.95 0.54 0.74 42.87 1.30

AIL120 1.16 1.15 1.16 0.67 0.02 0.65 0.40 0.52 38.58 1.15 0.91 0.78 0.84 14.25 0.59

AIL129 1.15 0.90 1.02 22.03 0.76 0.59 0.46 0.53 21.28 0.63 0.87 0.68 0.77 21.78 0.69

AIL134 1.75 0.61 1.18 65.29 2.24 0.37 0.36 0.36 2.28 0.07 1.06 0.48 0.77 54.36 1.16

AIL142 0.90 0.81 0.85 10.13 0.35 0.54 0.43 0.49 20.51 0.61 0.72 0.62 0.67 14.05 0.48

AIL148 1.16 0.97 1.07 16.38 0.56 0.84 0.62 0.73 26.18 0.78 1.00 0.79 0.90 20.49 0.67

Giza168 1.41 1.05 1.23 25.54 0.88 0.75 0.50 0.63 32.99 0.98 1.08 0.78 0.93 28.13 0.93

Sids12 1.34 0.98 1.16 26.88 0.92 0.65 0.34 0.49 46.90 1.40 0.99 0.66 0.83 33.40 1.16

Mean 1.22 0.87 0.63 0.42 0.92 0.64

F Test

irrigation (I) ** ** **

R LSD(G) 0.13 0.05 0.07

RLSD I × G 0.50 0.11 5.64

Reduction % 29.11 33.62 30.64


8

As for the drought susceptibility index, it




2.01 to AIL134 in the first season. It


drought at a rate of 0.29 to sids12, and the

most sensitive to drought at a rate of 1.86

to Giza168 in the second season. It




1.50 to Giza168 in means over two

seasons. The results showed that drought

stress reduces leaf chlorophyll (Ommen

et al. 1999) mainly due to damage to

chloroplasts caused by the genesis of

reactive oxygen species (ROS)

(Smirnoff 1995). Terminal drought caused

decreased of chlorophyll content and

protein content compared to normal

irrigation levels (Moaveni 2011;

Almeselmani et al. 2012).

3. Plant height:

The combined average of plant height


from 97.50 for sids12 to 108.67 for

AIL108 with an average of 101.97 four

genotypes were significantly surpassed the

average plant height under control plant

height ranged from 85.50 for AIL134 to

97.00 for AIL148 with an average of 93.00

six genotypes were significantly surpassed

the average plant height under drought.

The obtained results indicating that plant

height in these genotypes was height under

normal irrigation than under drought

conditions (Table 4). AIL129 and AIL148

recorded the highest length of wheat

individuals under drought conditions thus

these genotypes could be used to improve

plant height. The reductions in plant height

due to water stress in the first, second and

over both seasons were 10.51, 7.29 and



Drought susceptibility index (DSI)

indicated that the most tolerant genotypes

of drought at a rate of .10 to AIL148, and




drought at a rate of .10 to AIL148, and the


to AIL134 in the second season. It


drought at a rate of 0.04 to Giza 168, and


2.44 to AIL134 in means over two

seasons. It indicated the most tolerant

genotypes of drought at a rate of.25to

AIL148, and the most sensitive to drought

at a rate of 2.24 to AIL1108 in means over

two seasons. Mohamed (1999) found that

plant height was reduced by water stress

and Dencic et al (2000) came to the same

conclusion.

4. Spike length (cm):

The combined average of spike length


from 11.75 for AIL103 to 13.50 for sids12

with an average of 12.66. Four genotypes

were significantly surpassed the average

plant height under control spike length

ranged from 10.00 for sids12 to 11.75 for

AIL112 with an average of 11.06. Six


average spike length under drought (Table

7). The reductions in spike length due to

water stress in the first, second and over

both seasons were 10.08, 15.13 and





https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01904167.2019.1659318?casa_token=cmffeH4EleIAAAAA%3AtdFJH3aUUgxBraicAIXZTsO322ZZUFMA2i_I_Ps21I2p7gcMfX2Y6Bf23WTfPbG3_jRmqEr5KdU-hq9O





9

Table 5. Mean chlorophyll B content (nm), reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation

and water stress conditions



AIL103 0.64 0.51 0.57 21.51 0.73 0.64 0.37 0.51 42.19 1.00 0.64 0.44 0.54 31.81 0.87

AIL108 0.72 0.58 0.65 19.44 0.66 0.38 0.27 0.32 29.77 0.71 0.55 0.42 0.49 23.02 0.69

AIL112 0.96 0.72 0.84 24.88 0.85 0.64 0.14 0.39 78.07 1.86 0.80 0.43 0.61 46.26 1.35

AIL120 0.89 0.63 0.76 29.03 0.99 0.53 0.46 0.50 13.70 0.33 0.71 0.54 0.63 23.29 0.66

AIL129 0.65 0.61 0.63 6.15 0.21 0.41 0.27 0.34 34.15 0.81 0.53 0.44 0.49 16.98 0.51

AIL134 1.48 0.61 1.04 59.08 2.01 0.38 0.25 0.32 34.21 0.81 0.93 0.43 0.68 54.00 1.41

AIL142 0.64 0.58 0.61 9.38 0.32 0.54 0.34 0.44 35.94 0.86 0.59 0.46 0.52 21.48 0.59

AIL148 0.93 0.67 0.80 28.44 0.97 0.64 0.44 0.54 31.14 0.74 0.78 0.55 0.67 29.53 0.85

Giza168 0.93 0.62 0.77 33.20 1.13 0.58 0.13 0.35 78.17 1.86 0.75 0.37 0.56 50.48 1.50

Sids12 0.81 0.59 0.70 27.16 0.92 0.27 0.24 0.26 12.14 0.29 0.54 0.41 0.48 23.38 0.61

Mean 0.86 0.61 0.50 0.29 0.68 0.45

F Test

irrigation (I) * ** N.S

R LSD(G) 0.12 0.03 0.02

RLSD I × G 0.35 0.11 0.14

Reduction % 29.39 42.01 34.02

*, ** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability; respectively


10

Table 6. Mean plant height, cm, reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation and water

stress conditions.

2017 – 2018 2018 - 2019 Means over two years


AIL103 92.00 85.00 88.50 7.61 0.72 104.33 99.00 101.67 5.11 0.70 98.17 92.00 95.08 6.28 0.71

AIL108 106.67 86.67 96.67 18.75 1.78 110.67 105.00 107.83 5.12 0.70 108.67 95.83 102.25 11.81 1.24

AIL112 99.00 88.00 93.50 11.11 1.06 110.33 96.00 103.17 12.99 1.78 104.67 92.00 98.33 12.10 1.42

AIL120 95.00 84.00 89.50 11.58 1.10 111.67 103.00 107.33 7.76 1.07 103.33 93.50 98.42 9.52 1.08

AIL129 93.67 88.00 90.83 6.05 0.58 110.67 104.00 107.33 6.02 0.83 102.17 96.00 99.08 6.04 0.70

AIL134 98.00 77.00 87.50 21.43 2.04 114.33 94.00 104.17 17.78 2.44 106.17 85.50 95.83 19.47 2.24

AIL142 97.00 86.00 91.50 11.34 1.08 104.00 101.33 102.67 2.57 0.35 100.50 93.67 97.08 6.80 0.72

AIL148 92.00 91.00 91.50 1.09 0.10 106.00 103.00 104.50 2.83 0.39 99.00 97.00 98.00 2.02 0.25

Giza168 96.67 87.00 91.83 10.00 0.95 102.33 102.00 102.17 0.32 0.04 99.50 94.50 97.00 5.02 0.50

Sids12 85.00 82.00 83.50 3.53 0.34 110.00 98.00 104.00 10.91 1.50 97.50 90.00 93.75 7.69 0.92

Mean 95.50 85.47 108.43 100.53 101.97 93.00

F Test irrigation (I) ** * ***

R LSD(G) 1.62 3.90 1.21

RLSD I × G 9.05 8.40 5.64

Reduction % 10.51 7.29 8.79


11

Table 7. Mean spike length, (cm), reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation and water

stress conditions.

2017 – 2018 2018 - 2019 Means over two years


AIL103 11.50 10.50 11.00 8.70 0.86 12.00 10.50 11.25 12.50 0.83 11.75 10.50 11.13 10.64 0.84

AIL108 13.00 1

2.25 12.63 5.77 0.57 12.00 11.00 11.50 8.33 0.55 12.50 11.63 12.06 7.00 0.56

AIL112 13.17 12.50 12.83 5.06 0.50 13.33 11.00 12.17 17.50 1.16 13.25 11.75 12.50 11.32 0.83

AIL120 12.17 11.17 11.67 8.22 0.82 12.67 10.50 11.58 17.11 1.13 12.42 10.83 11.63 12.75 0.97

AIL129 13.33 11.00 12.17 17.50 1.74 13.00 11.50 12.25 11.54 0.76 13.17 11.25 12.21 14.56 1.25

AIL134 12.00 11.00 11.50 8.33 0.83 12.17 11.83 12.00 2.74 0.18 12.08 11.42 11.75 5.52 0.50

AIL142 13.00 11.00 12.00 15.38 1.53 13.00 11.67 12.33 10.26 0.68 13.00 11.33 12.17 12.82 1.10

AIL148 12.50 11.00 11.75 12.00 1.19 12.50 11.50 12.00 8.00 0.53 12.50 11.25 11.88 10.00 0.86

Giza168 12.33 11.83 12.08 4.05 0.40 12.50 9.50 11.00 24.00 1.59 12.42 10.67 11.54 14.09 0.99

Sids12 13.50 11.50 12.50 14.81 1.47 13.50 8.50 11.00 37.04 2.45 13.50 10.00 11.75 25.93 1.96

Mean 12.65 11.38 12.67 10.75 12.66 11.06

F Test

irrigation (I) * ** ***

R LSD(G) 0.72 0.68 0.84

RLSD I × G 2.58 4.40 5.59

Reduction % 10.08 15.13 12.61


12

Table 8. Mean 100 – grain weight (g), reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation and

water stress conditions.



AIL103 4.69 3.93 4.31 16.25 1.46 4.75 4.25 4.50 10.46 2.98 4.72 4.09 4.40 13.33 2.22

AIL108 4.85 4.30 4.58 11.33 1.02 4.85 4.71 4.78 2.89 0.82 4.85 4.51 4.68 7.11 0.92

AIL112 4.52 3.85 4.19 14.96 1.34 4.40 4.35 4.38 1.14 0.32 4.46 4.10 4.28 8.14 0.83

AIL120 4.75 4.50 4.63 5.33 0.48 4.69 4.65 4.67 0.85 0.24 4.72 4.57 4.65 3.11 0.36

AIL129 4.77 4.52 4.64 5.31 0.48 4.93 4.90 4.92 0.61 0.17 4.85 4.71 4.78 2.92 0.32

AIL134 5.02 4.34 4.68 13.49 1.21 4.83 4.80 4.82 0.48 0.14 4.92 4.57 4.75 7.11 0.67

AIL142 5.25 4.65 4.95 11.47 1.03 5.03 5.00 5.02 0.60 0.17 5.14 4.82 4.98 6.15 0.60

AIL148 5.42 4.51 4.96 16.74 1.50 4.92 4.85 4.88 1.36 0.39 5.17 4.68 4.92 9.42 0.94

Giza168 4.84 4.22 4.53 12.88 1.16 4.43 4.02 4.23 9.40 2.68 4.64 4.12 4.38 11.21 1.92

Sids12 4.57 4.44 4.51 2.70 0.24 4.55 4.18 4.37 8.13 2.32 4.56 4.31 4.44 5.41 1.28

Mean 4.87 4.32

4.74 4.57

4.80 4.45

F Test

irrigation (I) *** N.S ***

R LSD(G) 0.02 0.27 0.14

RLSD I × G 0.70 0.93 0.51

Reduction % 11.15 3.51 7.38


13

drought at a rate of 0.40 to Giza168, and






2.45 to sids12 in the second season. It




1.96 to sids12 in means over two seasons.

Abd El-Karim (1991) found that spike

length was significantly affected by water

stress treatments and wheat genotypes.

Furthermore, the mean square due to water

stress x genotype was significant for spike

length. (Kheiralla et al. 2004) reported that

spike length was highly significantly

affected by years, water stress treatments

and genotype. Moreover, exposing wheat

plants to drought at tailoring, booting and

milk stages reduced spike length.

5. 100 grains weight (100GW):

The combined average of 100GW under

normal irrigation conditions ranged from

4.46 for AIL112 to 5.17 for AIL148 with

an average of 4.80. Five genotypes were

significantly surpassed the average

100GW under control, 100 grain weight

ranged from 4.09 for AIL103 to 4.82 for

AIL142 with an average of 4.45 six


average 100GW under drought (Table 8).

The reductions in 100GW due to water

stress in the first, second and over both

seasons were 11.15, 3.51 and 7.38%

compared to normal irrigation conditions,

respectively.



drought at a rate of 0.24 to sids12 and the


to AIL148 in the first season. It indicated

the most tolerant genotypes of drought at a

rate of 0.14 to AIL134, and the most

sensitive to drought at a rate of 2.98 to

Giza168 in the second season. It indicated

the most tolerant genotypes of drought at a

rate of 0.32 to AIL129, and the most

sensitive to drought at a rate of 2.22 to

AIL103 in means over two seasons. Sayed

and Hi (1982) showed that the 1000GW

was reduced by 12% under drought stress.

Tawfelis (2006) reported that wheat

genotypes differently responded to

different environmental conditions and

drought and heat stress reduced number of

1000GW to 9.06% and 22.06%,

respectively, compared to normal.

6. Grain yield per genotype (g):

The combined average of grain yield

per genotype under normal irrigation

conditions ranged from 526.89 for AIL148

to 927.64 for AIL129 with an average of

686.35. Four genotypes were significantly

surpassed the average grain yield per

genotype Under control, grain yield per

genotype ranged from 66.08 for AIL142 to

229.58 for AIL148 with an average of

159.35 six genotypes were significantly

surpassed the average grain yield per

genotype under drought (Table 8). The

reductions in grain yield/plot due to water

stress in the first, second and over both

seasons were 77.29, 76.44 and 76.78%

compared to normal irrigation conditions,

respectively.

As for the drought susceptibility

index, it indicated the most tolerant

genotypes of drought at a rate of .80 to


at a rate of 1.14 to AIL142 in the first

season. It indicated the most tolerant


14

Table 9. Mean grain yield / genotype / (g), reduction% (R) and drought susceptibility index (DSI) for the two seasons under normal irrigation and

water stress conditions.



AIL103 545.79 108.19 326.99 80.18 1.04 628.36 151.04 389.70 75.96 0.99 587.07 129.61 358.34 77.92 1.02

AIL108 773.74 155.88 464.81 79.85 1.03 911.90 167.92 539.91 81.59 1.07 842.82 161.90 502.36 80.79 1.05

AIL112 354.78 136.08 245.43 61.65 0.80 786.63 317.83 552.23 59.60 0.78 570.71 226.95 398.83 60.23 0.79

AIL120 561.68 66.75 314.22 88.12 1.14 1256.05 193.05 724.55 84.63 1.11 908.87 129.90 519.38 85.71 1.12

AIL129 782.44 131.48 456.96 83.20 1.08 1072.84 115.17 594.00 89.27 1.17 927.64 123.32 525.48 86.71 1.12

AIL134 653.22 157.51 405.36 75.89 0.98 866.41 185.39 525.90 78.60 1.03 759.81 171.45 465.63 77.44 1.01

AIL142 441.20 51.15 246.17 88.41 1.14 803.23 81.02 442.13 89.91 1.18 622.21 66.08 344.15 89.38 1.16

AIL148 620.70 217.47 419.08 64.96 0.84 433.08 241.70 337.39 44.19 0.58 526.89 229.58 378.24 56.43 0.71

Giza168 390.84 80.42 235.63 79.42 1.03 776.81 252.88 514.85 67.45 0.88 583.82 166.65 375.24 71.46 0.96

Sids12 432.69 157.37 295.03 63.63 0.82 634.74 218.76 426.75 65.54 0.86 533.71 188.06 360.89 64.76 0.84

Mean 555.71 126.23 817.00 192.47 686.35 159.35

F Test

irrigation (I) *** *** ***

R LSD(G) 42.07 85.63 40.09

RLSD I × G 133.17 289.88 145.83

Reduction % 77.29 76.44 76.78


15



at a rate of 1.18 to AIL142 in the second

season. It indicated the most tolerant



at a rate of 1.16 to AIL142 in means over

two seasons. Kobata et al (1992) showed

that the grain yield was reduced under

water stress by 33%. While, Salem (2005)

reported that full irrigation treatment

significantly maximized grain yield / ha

and Dencic et al. (2000) found that

decreasing soil moisture caused significant

reduction in grain yield.

References

Abd El-Karim, A. (1991). 'Evaluation of

some wheat germplasm under some

stresses', M.Sc.Thesis, Fac. Agric.,

Assiut Univ., Egypt.

Almeselmani, M., Saud, A.A.R, Al-zubi,

K., Hareri, F., Al-nassan, M.,

Ammar, M., A, Kanbar, O. Z., Al-

Naseef, H., Al-nator, A., Algazawy,

A. and Abu Al-sael, H. (2012).

'Physiological attributes associated

to water deficit tolerance of Syrian

durum wheat varieties', Exper. Agric.

Horti. , 8, pp. 21-41.

Bartels, D., Sunkars R. (2005). 'Drought

and salt tolerance in plants', Critical

Reviews in Plant Science, 24(1),pp.

23-58.

doi: 10.1080/07352680590910410

Begcy, K., Walia H. (2015). 'Drought

stress delays endosperm

development and miss regulates

genes associated with cytoskeleton

organization and grain quality

proteins in developing wheat seeds',

Plant Science, 240, pp.109–119. doi:

10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.08.024

Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F.,

Mazzucotelli, E., Mastrangelo, A.,

Francia, E., Marè, C. Tondelli, A.

and Stanca, A.M (2008).' Drought

tolerance improvement in crop

plants: an integrated view from

breeding to genomics', Field crops

research, 105(1-2), pp. 1-14. doi:

10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004

Chaves, M. S., Martinelli, J. A., Wesp-

Guterres, C., Graichen, F. A. S.,

Brammer, S. P., Scagliusi, S. M., ...

and Consoli, L. (2013). 'The

importance for food security of

maintaining rust resistance in

wheat', Food security, 5(2), pp. 157-

176. doi: 10.1007/s12571-013-0248-x

Condon, A. G., Richards, R. A., Rebetzke,

G. J., and Farquhar, G. D. (2002).'

Improving intrinsic water‐use

efficiency and crop yield', Crop

science, 42(1), pp. 122-131. doi:

10.2135/cropsci2002.1220

Denčić, S., Kastori, R., Kobiljski, B., and

Duggan, B. (2000). 'Evaluation of

grain yield and its components in

wheat cultivars and landraces under

near optimal and drought

conditions', Euphytica, 113(1), pp.

43-52.

doi: 10.1023/A:1003997700865

Al-Rawi, K., and Khalaf-Allah, A. (1980).

'Design and analysis of agricultural

experiments', El Mousel Univ.,

Iraq, 19, pp. 487.

FAO- OECA (2018). 'Food and agriculture

organization of the united nations,

crop prospect and food situation',

http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cp

fs.

Farooq, M., Hussain, M., and Siddique, K.

(2014). 'Drought stress in wheat

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.08.024

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0248-x

https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.1220

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003997700865

http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs

http://www.fao.org/giews/english/cpfs


16

during flowering and grain-filling

periods', Critical Reviews in Plant

Sciences, 33(4), pp. 331-349. doi:

10.1080/07352689.2014.875291

Fischer, R., and Maurer, R. (1978).

'Drought resistance in spring wheat

cultivars. I. Grain yield

responses', Australian Journal of

Agricultural Research, 29(5), pp.

897-912. doi: 10.1071/AR9780897

Gomez, K., and Gomez, A.

(1984).' Statistical procedures for

agricultural research', John Wiley &

Sons.

Huseynova, I. (2012).' Photosynthetic

characteristics and enzymatic

antioxidant capacity of leaves from

wheat cultivars exposed to

drought', Biochimica et Biophysica

Acta (BBA)-Bioenergetics, 1817(8),

pp.1516-1523.

doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.02.037

Iqbal, J. (2019).' Morphological,

physiological and molecular markers

for the adaptation of wheat in

drought condition', Asian Journal of

Biotechnology and Genetic

Engineering, pp.1-13.

Iwańska, M., Paderewski, J., Stępień, M.,

and Rodrigues, P.c. (2020).'

Adaptation of Winter Wheat

Cultivars to Different Environments':

A Case Study in

Poland, Agronomy, 10(5), pp. 632.

doi: 10.3390/agronomy10050632

Ji, X., Shiran, B., Wan, J., Lewis, D. C.,

Jenkins, C. L.D, Condon, A. G.,

Richards, R.A and Dolferus, R.

(2010). 'Importance of pre‐anthesis

anther sink strength for maintenance

of grain number during reproductive

stage water stress in wheat', Plant,

Cell & Environment, 33(6), pp. 926-

942. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-

3040.2010.02130.x

Keyvan, S. (2010). 'The effects of drought

stress on yield, relative water

content, proline, soluble

carbohydrates and chlorophyll of

bread wheat cultivars', J. Anim. Plant

Sci, 8(3), pp.1051-1060.

Kheiralla, K., El-Morshidy, M., M.H.

Motawea and Saeid,A. (2004).

'Performance and stability of some

wheat genotypes under normal and

water stress conditions', Assiut

J.Agric. Sci., 35, pp. 74-94.

Kobata, T., Palta, J. A., and Turner, N. C.

(1992). 'Rate of development of

postanthesis water deficits and grain

filling of spring wheat', Crop

science, 32(5), pp.1238-1242. doi:

10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X0032

00050035x

Mafakheri, A., Siosemardeh, A.,

Bahramnejad, B., Struik, P., and

Sohrabi, Y. (2010). 'Effect of

drought stress on yield, proline and

chlorophyll contents in three

chickpea cultivars', Australian

journal of crop science, 4(8), pp.

580.

Moaveni, P. (2011). 'Effect of water deficit

stress on some physiological traits of

wheat (Triticum aestivum)', Agric.

Sci. Res. J, 1(1), pp. 64-68.

Mohamed, A. (1999). 'Promising durum

wheat genotypes under normal and

stress growing conditions in northern

Sudan', Barley and Wheat

Newsletter.

Nikolaeva, M., Maevskaya, S., Shugaev,

A., and Bukhov, N. (2010).'Effect of

https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.875291

https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9780897

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.02.037

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050632

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02130.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02130.x

https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200050035x

https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1992.0011183X003200050035x


17

drought on chlorophyll content and

antioxidant enzyme activities in

leaves of three wheat cultivars

varying in productivity', Russian

Journal of Plant Physiology, 57(1),

pp. 87-95. doi:

10.1134/S1021443710010127

Ommen, O., Donnelly, A., Vanhoutvin, S.,

Van Oijen, M., and Manderscheid, R.

(1999). 'Chlorophyll content of spring

wheat flag leaves grown under

elevated CO2 concentrations and

other environmental stresses within

the ‘ESPACE-wheat

‘project', European Journal of

Agronomy, 10(3-4), pp. 197-203. doi:

10.1016/S1161-0301(99)00011-8

Rahaie, M., Xue, G., and Schenk, P.

(2013).'The role of transcription

factors in wheat under different

abiotic stresses', Abiotic stress-plant

responses and applications in

agriculture, pp. 367-385. doi:

10.5772/54795

Rizk, A., and Sherif, M. (2014).' Effect of

soil moisture depletion on the yield

of wheat under sprinkler irrigation at

Toshka area, Egypt', Middle East J.

of Agric. Res, 3(4), pp.981-987.

Salem, M.A. (2005). 'Effect of nitrogen

rates and irrigation regimes on yield

and yield components of bread wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes

under newly reclaimed land

conditions’. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura

Univ., Egypt, 30, pp. 6481-6490.

Savary, S., Ficke, A., Aubertot, J. N., and

Hollier, C. (2012). 'Crop losses due

to diseases and their implications for

global food production losses and

food security'. Food Secur 4, pp.

519–537. doi: 10.1007/sl2571-012-

0200-5

Sayed, H. and HI, S. (1982). 'Response of

wheat and triticale cultivars grown

under field conditions to drought

stress', Wheat information Service,

167, pp. 23-28.

Smirnoff, N. (1995). 'Metabolic flexibility

in relation to the

environment. Environment and plant

metabolism: flexibility and

acclimation', Oxford: Bios Scientific

publishers, pp.1-13.

Tawfelis, M. (2006). 'Using biplot

technique in wheat breeding under

different environmental stresses',

Egypt J. Plant Breed, 10, pp. 167-

200.

Tian, F.B., Young, J., and Lai, J. (2014).'

Improving power-extraction

efficiency of a flapping plate: From

passive deformation to active

control', Journal of Fluids and

Structures, 51, pp. 384-392. doi:

10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.07.013

Welfare, K., Flower, T.J., Taylor, G., and

Yeo, A.R., (1996). 'Additive and

antagonistic effects of ozone and

salinity on growth, ion contents and

gas exchange of five varieties of rice

(Oryza sativa L.)', Environmental

Pollution, 92(3), pp. 257-266.

doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(96)00003-6

Zhao, H., Xu, Z., Zhao, J., and Huang, W.

(2017).' A drought rarity and

evapotranspiration-based index as a

suitable agricultural drought

indicator', Ecological Indicators, 82,

pp.530-538.

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.024

https://doi.org/10.1134/S1021443710010127

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(99)00011-8

https://doi.org/10.5772/54795

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2014.07.013

https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(96)00003-6

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.024

Documents

Growth and yield responses of ten wheat (Triticum aestivum